AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: raguel

form_srcid: raguel

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.204.163.26

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: raguel

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'raguel%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2008/02/01 01:18:58, Link
Author: raguel
about the 480 bit thing:

I don't have much background in any of the relevant fields but I do have a few questions (for the purpose of this discussion, let's assume design can be detected in 480+ bit sequences):

1. what percentage of genes are 480+ bits?

2. have any ID proponents run calculations on these genes?

Date: 2008/03/07 20:15:18, Link
Author: raguel
Somewhat OT, but speaking of embryology, and Haeckel:

In my lifetime, I've been a vocal supporter for both YEC and evolution, but only recently (around the time of the Dover trial) have I made an earnest, intellectual attempt to understanding "both sides of the debate".

Since my knowledge of biology was limited, I decided to use an analogy (ToE:ID::Lewis::MO) as a guide.

ID/creationism/'teachthecontroversy'/'academicfreedom' has failed utterly and completely the test. For example, take embryology: if I go to working scientists, science writers, and professors I get the following information:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....aki.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....yng.php
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

When creationists comment at all about embryology they dwell nearly exclusively on Haeckel's drawings, as if the last century's worth of research didn't exist.

Date: 2008/03/10 20:30:20, Link
Author: raguel
How exactly does this:

Quote
To the limited extent that von Baer had shown 40 years earlier, this is true.


contradict with this:

Quote
But embryos also have many unique features (yolk sac, allantois, amniotic membranes, umbilical cords) that have nothing to do with the evolutionary past and are adaptations to their developmental environment. Thus it is dangerous to overextend the evolutionary implications of the stages in the embryo, but they are useful guides nonetheless. (p. 108)



Also: are we to pretend that there's no difference between gills and gill slits, and that mammalian embryos don't have gill slits?

Date: 2008/03/10 20:34:48, Link
Author: raguel
Quote
Useful guides to what?



How about this?

Quote
Second, the embryology of the whale, examined in detail, also provides evidence for its terrestrial ancestry. As embryos no less than as adult animals, whales are junkyards, as it were, of old, discarded features that are of no further use to them. Many whales, while still in the womb, begin to develop body hair. Yet no modern whales retain any body hair after birth, except for some snout hairs and hairs around their blowholes used as sensory bristles in a few species. The fact that whales possess the genes for producing body hair shows that their ancestors had body hair. In other words, their ancestors were ordinary mammals.

In many embryonic whales, external hind limb buds are visible for a time but thendisappear as the whale grows larger. Also visible in the embryo are rudimentary ear pinnae, which disappear before birth (except in those that carry them as rare atavisms). And, in some whales, the olfactory lobes of the brain exist only in the fetus. The whale embryo starts off with its nostrils in the usual place for mammals, at the tip of the snout. But during development, the nostrils migrate to their final place at the top of the head to form the blowhole (or blowholes)

Date: 2008/03/21 09:58:02, Link
Author: raguel
Quote
Alb, a semi-biggish favor: would you mind sending me the complete list of textbooks you've examined, in re Haeckel's embryos? Please indicate title, authors, date of publication, level [e.g., high school, college introductory, college advanced], brief description of content on embryology as evidence for common descent, and anything else you think bears on the matter.  Thanks.  As described, that's actually a BIG favor, but I'd greatly appreciate the information.  Email: nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu


Isn't that the type of "research" that should have been done before the book was written?[/QUOTE]

Date: 2008/03/30 20:46:42, Link
Author: raguel
From Kevin's "answers":

Quote
I know there are probably many more predictions than this, but here are a few that I find compelling:...4) informational structures beyond the inherent abilities of blind natural forces and random chance will be found,


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way I can see the above being true is if one can experimentally (1)  determine if a molecule is "synthetic" by it's chemical properties (specifically, it's reactivity and 3d shape) alone,  (2) can determine which molecules weren't produced by chemical reactions, and/or (3)the formation of the "structure" in question can't occur in an organism. Nothing these people say make sense.

Date: 2008/03/30 21:47:47, Link
Author: raguel
Bah. You evilushunists claim there's an edit button, but as far as I can tell it's just another missing link.  :(

Date: 2008/03/31 15:08:08, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 31 2008,06:58)
     
Quote (raguel @ Mar. 31 2008,02:46)
From Kevin's "answers":

       
Quote
I know there are probably many more predictions than this, but here are a few that I find compelling:...4) informational structures beyond the inherent abilities of blind natural forces and random chance will be found,


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way I can see the above being true is if one can experimentally 1)  determine if a molecule is "synthetic" by it's chemical properties (specifically, it's reactivity and 3d shape) alone,  (2) can determine which molecules weren't produced by chemical reactions, and/or (3)the formation of the "structure" in question can't occur in an organism. Nothing these people say make sense.



2)/3) All molecules are formed by a chemical reaction of some kind, by definition, but given what you said in 3) I see what you mean as being that a chemical reaction in an organisms could not have made molecule X so it had to be a chemical reaction in a lab. This is a bit different.

Just so that we're clear, I understand the bolded part. What I'm getting at is based on Kevin's statement the only logical conclusion I can think of is that he doesn't. It's why I instantly objected to the whole "information" argument. It didn't make sense the first time I saw it (for the reasons I cited) and worse they pretend it doesn't matter. How are they going to show that a designer is necessary for the formation of a gene (or genes, or organisms for that matter) without a pathway? They try to hand wave this necessity away by saying "oh, we know it took a designer because it has oodles and oodles of information". They might has well say it has oodles and oodles of goobleygook. I was shocked to find out "information" actually had a legitimate scientific/mathematical meaning, but not shocked at all to learn that IDists weren't using that definition.

Now I could be wrong. I've forgotten about 80% of what I learned in college.  My understanding of biology has always been limited, to put it mildly. I still think I'm safe to say that they are full of it.

Date: 2008/04/03 12:44:05, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 03 2008,11:58)
The creationists keep harping about "follow the evidence" and "let's examine all the possibilities."

We did that already.

The only argument that any creationist has is that "the Bible said it different, " and "science is too hard and I don't have time to study."  Mr. Miller had time to make a propaganda film, but not the time to actually learn anything about the topic of his "work."

Ah, but scientists were only looking at the empirical/material evidence. They didn't bother to consider the other types of evidence. What other types of evidence are there besides the observable kind? You'd know the answer if you weren't so dogmatic about naturalism.  :p

Date: 2008/04/16 04:23:39, Link
Author: raguel
Quote
Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world.”

The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Darwin's theory of evolution"  does not include endosymbiosis, genetic drift, and neutral theory. It doesn't even contain genetics, lateral gene transfer or evo-devo.

Even if "Darwin's theory of evolution" meant the theory as it stands today, to say that it "fully explains the complexity of living things" would be to imply there's no point in doing any research tomorrow.

I could have gone the rest of my life not knowing what the word "vacuous" meant, but thanks for the lesson.

Date: 2008/04/23 13:59:09, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Paul Nelson @ April 23 2008,10:40)
Alb said,

 
Quote
Don't you think you could answer some of them, rather than just ask questions of your own and pretend that ours don't exist?


Here's a quick recap.  JAM cited a paper from Science in support of his question to me about the genetic basis of size differences.  The paper concerned variation in dogs.  I read it, thought about it, and wondered about a couple of things:

1.  How do we determine the genetics of size differences for extinct taxa?  The original context of JAM's question involved scaling illustrations of the mammal-like reptile transition.

2.  The variation in canids was in domesticated, not wild, populations.  Hence I wondered if JAM had additional data about size variation in natural populations, because I think there are important (evidentially relevant) differences between domesticated and wild populations, with respect to evolution.

So my question to JAM stems from trying to follow up his question to me.

Isn't that the sort of research that should have been done before the book was printed?  Before you accused scientists of being dishonest/misleading?

Date: 2008/04/23 14:04:30, Link
Author: raguel
I forgot to add: is there any chance that EE also discussed about the embryological evidence for the evolution of the ear?

Date: 2008/04/25 13:17:28, Link
Author: raguel
So from my PoV:

According to ToE, species evolve and have a common ancestor (or if you prefer, common ancestors). Evidence for this includes the evolution of the mammalian ear. There are, to my knowledge, two forms of evidence:

1. fossil record

2. homologies in embryos of extant species (reptiles and mammals)


IDists response to these are:

1. size matters (but they won't say why)

2. LOLHaeckel!!!1one!eleven!


Did I miss anything?

Date: 2008/04/28 04:47:41, Link
Author: raguel
Quote

Bradford: Why resort to a statistical analysis when explanations citing a physical cause are available.



Interesting position; now take it one step further...

Date: 2008/05/04 11:49:03, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Guest @ April 29 2008,22:54)
Evos believe:

Time might flow backwards.

A super hot object placed close to a super cold object would over geologic time experience the cold body giving up its heat energy to the hot object. The hot gets hotter and cold gets colder..particularly if they are far from equilibrium as in near absolute zero and the suns core temperature.

Molecules randomly interacted to form monomers, then monomers form diamers, diamers form polymers, polymers become DNA, proteins, and eventually an entire cell appears all without any intellect or design being involved.

From monomers upward the Free Energy is in opposition to every step and the configurational entropy for all the needed amino acids stereo specificity is also from diamers upward.

None of this abiogenesis has been demonstrated or resolved but is simply hypothetically supposed to have happened no matter the utterly miniscule possibilities over deep time.

Um, is he saying that chemical bonds require energy to form, and bond breaking releases energy? Or is he just ignoring enthalpy altogether?

Date: 2008/05/13 22:30:04, Link
Author: raguel
So I'm guessing the quote about homologous structures without homologous genes has to do with hox genes?

Date: 2008/05/14 05:42:31, Link
Author: raguel
dheddle: Frankly your indignation would carry more weight if you hadn't put your name on the "dissent from Darwinism" list, knowing full well it was a vacuous statement.

For my own part, I'm a recovering fundamentalist with a more nuanced view of god and religious beliefs (I never even heard of deism back then lol, but then I grew up in Florida :D ) I do remember thinking in college, "if God is not necessary for chemistry, then God isn't necessary for anything". I no longer believe it's that simple, but I think the efficacy of the scientific method vs. the abject failure of religion is telling.

Date: 2008/05/14 06:01:34, Link
Author: raguel
Heh. I misread your post. My apologies

And what I meant wrt the nuanced comment, is that I have a different view of religion now than I did when I was a teenager. Basically I was brought up to believe that any religion other than Christianity was created/inspired by Satan, and any non-Baptist denomination was suspect.

Not that it has much to do with where this thread was actually heading. Well, the good news is I'm now 2 posts closer to an edit button.  :p

Date: 2008/05/15 13:24:19, Link
Author: raguel
Ouch that article (and sub to Nature) is pretty expensive. I sent an email to Wagner. Hopefully I can get a copy.  :)


Quote
Quote
it is quite remarkable that most biologists continue to interpret nearly every aspect of biodiversity as an outcome of adaptive processes. This blind acceptance of natural selection as the only force relevant to evolution has led to a lot of sloppy thinking, and is probably the primary reason why evolution is viewed as a soft science by much of society.


Timmer calls Explore Evolution™s discussion of natural selection "hallucinatory"' on the contrary, if anything, the book soft-peddles the problems. Again, will students learn about these debates from their standard texts? Almost certainly not.


I'd like to believe that EE actually discusses gene transfer and genetic drift and didn't just go for quote mines but based on prior evidence I don't hold out much hope. Paul, feel free to correct me.  :D

Date: 2008/05/27 15:58:44, Link
Author: raguel
Since I've hinted at this, let me say it explicitly: the most compelling case for evolution imo is the consilience of the evidence of the evidence. In other words, IMO several oppurtunities for falsification, despite creationists objections to the contrary, and yet through using different disciplines and techniques the evidence converge on a single reality: evolution.

I have googled for any creationists attempt to explain away both fossil and evo-devo evidence wrt mammalian ears, and the best I got was from Stephen E. Jones:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejone....ntrnstn

Quote
8. Mammals
1. Reptile jawbone-mammal earbone transition
Evolution cannot explain why a line of reptiles, which can hear perfectly well, would start to
transform their entire jawbone-earbone structure for the benefit of a future line of mammals. Gould asks:
"Embryology and paleontology provide adequate documentation of the `how,' but we would also like more
insight into the `why.' In particular, why should such a transition occur-especially since the single-boned
stapedial ear seems to function quite adequately (and, at least in some birds, every bit as well as the three-
boned mammalian ear)? " (Gould, 1993, p.106)


Hmm. Well, I suppose evilushinists would gladly grant that they don't know "why" if creationists would grant that they do know how, and thus by implication that it happened at all.  This btw, is a perfect example of what I think of when I think of the phrases "Christian Apologetics" or "can't see the forest for the trees".

Date: 2008/05/28 17:53:02, Link
Author: raguel
I guess I don't see the point in an E/C (or, charitably, an E/ID) blog if you're not even going to at least pretend that science and research is important.

Date: 2008/05/28 17:55:12, Link
Author: raguel
Meh, still no edit button :(

If it were me, I'd just stick to a Kurt Wise-like "I believe in God", and let it go with that.

Date: 2008/05/29 02:16:05, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (dogdidit @ May 28 2008,20:20)
Quote (raguel @ May 28 2008,17:55)
Meh, still no edit button :(

Try glaring at Wesley. That seems to work.

Actually, Wes already spoke to me about it. I'm willing to be patient; I was just upset I had to make two posts there.

Date: 2008/06/04 15:12:54, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (blipey @ June 04 2008,11:06)
Quote
It's posts like this that make me want to slap you up side the head, blipes.  What a blithering misrepresentation of my position on numerous issues.

The thing is that I believe you know better...either that or you're a damn idiot who doesn't comprehend a thing I write (which is more likely the case).  

It's pointless to respond because even if I do, you'll repeat the same nonsense again next month.  The only reason I *should* respond is because I believe you purposely repeat this type of nonsense just to feed lurkers these lies about me.  Although, it's extremely doubtful there are any lurkers here who aren't "dogmatic" Darwin followers so it wouldn't matter if I corrected you anyway.

Screw it.  I'm going to bed.  I'll have to address this BS tomorrow.

FtK:

Quote
dog·mat·ic  (dôg-mtk, dg-)
adj.
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma.
2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.


Hi. I'm usually a lurker on various E/C forums. I've seen you around but I don't think I've ever responded to you. I can't say I know or care about the "history" between you or the others here, who's right or who's wrong. I will say this though: I've noticed a disconcerting carelessness with respect the usage of words like "dogmatic" and "worldviews", when creationists/IDists describe their opponents arguments/research/etc. They seem to be sprinkled in for flavor, without any need on the writer's part to provide any evidence that it's use is indeed a valid description. I am justified in holding that position, because these writers fail to provide evidence for using those terms. Now, you may believe that someone is asserting a position
Quote
of unproved or unprovable principles.
, but you have to show it's unproved or unprovable in order to justify labeling it "dogmatic", yes?

Date: 2008/06/05 09:07:18, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (didymos @ June 04 2008,15:17)
She's cherry-picking her definitions:

Quote

dogmatic
Adjective
habitually stating one's opinions in a forceful or arrogant manner
dogmatically adv
dogmatism n

Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006


Of course, you can tell from the context she actually meant the other, more common definition, which is, equally of course, what everyone except FtK picked up on and then picked on, quite justifiably.

In her defense, my silence is LEGENDARY.  :)

Date: 2008/06/22 16:52:59, Link
Author: raguel
Quote
Congrats, Rich. You've just demonstrated your ability for selective reading once again.



Sig-worthy IMO   :D

Date: 2008/06/22 21:00:55, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ June 22 2008,19:36)
As for my point about PZ, he'd be the last one to deny that he's conflating atheism and science. In fact, he encourages such behavior.

[URL=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06

/what_should_a_scientist_think.php]http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....ink.php[/URL]


Quote
There are a number of people, including many of the contributors to the Panda's Thumb, who are adamant that evolution must maintain a plausible deniability from atheism—that atheism is not a necessary consequence of accepting good science (a point with which I agree)



Given the above and the part MWT quoted earlier, Kevin is honoring the amusing creationist tradition of linking to articles that directly contradicts his point. /bow

Date: 2008/06/22 22:57:59, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (ERV @ June 22 2008,21:17)
Quote (stevestory @ June 22 2008,20:26)
LOL. ERV is definitely invited to the 2008 Doverlicious Dovetacular Drinkathon or whatever the hell we're calling it.

Depends on if I can find a boarder for Kevin.  Doggie Daycare takes pit bulls, so Arnies fine, but I dunno what their policy is on Creationists.  They might not have someone on-site to clean up the Creationists steaming piles of crap 24/7.


 
Quote (raguel @ June 22 2008,21:00)
Given the above and the part MWT quoted earlier, Kevin is honoring the amusing creationist tradition of linking to articles that directly contradicts his point. /bow

Well, everybody makes mistakes.  Read an article too fast or whatever.  What makes Creationists distinct is that they will never, ever, EVER say "Oops.  My bad. Sorry."

I've certainly made a lot of mistakes; it's really the arrogance and stubbornness that kills me.  Despite my poor attempts at humor, this is beginning to grate on me. Over at IIDB, I was going round and round with a creationist about an AiG article concerning vestigial organs. I pointed out that it was dishonest in the sense it charged "evolutionists" with creating a "new,revisionist" definition of the word "vestigial". I c/p'd an excerpt from Origin of Species. He never did admit that the article was dishonest. Now some other looney jumps in and claims that I've been intellectually dishonest.   :angry:

Date: 2008/07/10 21:51:56, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 10 2008,14:50)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 10 2008,00:39)
Alb, my copy of The Tragic Sense of Life arrived.  We'll be citing it in the new edition of Explore Evolution.

Paul,

I can't wait to see the quote-mines you will do with that book.

I found it amusing to discover that many of your standard creationist arguments were leveled at Haeckel over 130 years ago (p. 323). Almost all of those are repeated in EE. You guys need to get some new material.  Maybe you can try doing some experiments, rather than going to conferences or quote-mining books dealing with 19th-century science?

hah i was going to mention this the other day. In between visits from Paul, I caught a few minutes of a program on the Science channel, titled "Dinosaurs: Return to Life:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/science....en.html


Quote
Hans Larsson, a palaeontologist at McGill University in Canada, conducted an experiment in November 2007 into the evolution from dinosaurs’ long tails into birds’ short tails more than 150 million years ago.

Looking at a two-day-old chicken embryo, he made an unexpected discovery.

Expecting to see between four and eight vertebrae present in the developing spine, his microscope instead picked out 16 vertebrae — effectively a reptilian tail.

As the embryo developed, the ‘tail’ became shorter and shorter, until the young bird hatched with only five vertebrae.

Larsson says of the significance of the find: ‘For about 150 million years, this kind of a tail has never existed in birds.

'But they have always carried it deep inside their embryology.’

So, the blueprint for a dinosaur remained locked inside the modern-day bird.

Larsson decided to move from theory to reality.

He wanted to see if he could make a chicken grow a dinosaur’s tail, turning the clock back millions of years.

Manipulating the genetic make-up, he was able to extend the tail by a further three vertebrae.

Larsson had pinpointed a method for turning on dormant dinosaur genes.


So on one side, I see a few scientists talking about their research/experiments and how it confirms ToE, and on the other side I get yet another discussion about some 19th century wood carvings. This is what the kids today refer to as "EPIC FAIL".

Date: 2008/07/11 11:57:02, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,09:54)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 11 2008,09:32)
FtK, have you considered actually studying the issue, then you might be better equipped to evaluate?

lol...luv, you have no idea as to the depth of studying and outside conversations I am involved in regarding the arguments your pals put forth.  

Nuf. said.

I've learned over the years that it doesn't matter what evidence is put forth if you're conversing with a group of  people who have closed off their ability to remain open minded because of their philosophical beliefs.

No to pile on, but, well, I'm gonna pile on.

While in college, I had a unique opportunity as an undergrad (chemistry) to have a paid position as a research assistant, which also doubled as my thesis (or whatever it's called for undergrads; it feels like a lifetime ago). In this program, my advisors taught me how to make scientific presentations (both posters and oral). I went to a handful of ACS meetings, and watch scientists present their work and answer questions to other scientists.

Based on my experience I have to say this post (and a majority of other stuff you've written) is the opposite of what I'd expect to see from someone who wants to have a serious discussion about science. It also makes no sense, given that other Christians (specifically, as others have pointed out, Creationists at that) disagree with c-decay. Are they also close-minded?

Referring to common descent/common design as mere paradigms is a cop out. These are two entirely different concepts (assuming, by common design, one is asserting that a conscious being created organisms) and therefore there should be some test where one or the other provides the best explanation . I've seen IDists try to invoke Newton's ToG /Einstein's ToR as an analogy, but fail dramatically with this obvious issue, probably because at this point, one has to produce a mechanism.

This isn't about being "close-minded", unless you consider having to adhere to the scientific method as being "close-minded". IMO this is, as the saying goes, where the rubber meets the road. Refusing to subject one's ideas to the scientific method but still proclaiming it's scientific is selling woof tickets. In my mind, it's a tacit admission one knows one's idea can't withstand scrutiny.

And yes, I think common descent provides the best explanation, for a host of reasons, but specifically fish-like tetrapods and whales.

Date: 2008/07/16 15:13:32, Link
Author: raguel
Well, I guess it's pile on time again.  :)


I find it odd that a non-scientist/biologist can look at tiktaalik and think "fish". I see that flat head and think "alligator". I don't see any part of that fossil that makes me think it's a fish. That fact may be a sign that I'm ignorant of some basic understanding, but it's my honest reaction and I'm curious as to how anyone not trained in the relevant fields would have a different view that I do (not that I'm saying no one can; I just want to know what I missed that others, with no background, can clearly see.)

It seems to me that paleontologists are always looking in the wrong place for something. I'd imagine Shubin was in the wrong place to find  rabbit and kangaroo fossils, but somehow managed to find tiktaalik instead.

After lecturing everyone about close- and open-mindedness, FtK appears to be close-minded to concepts like consilience and models. If it weren't for things like paleobiogeography, maybe common design, whatever that is, would be just as good a model as common descent. After all, an intelligent designer (who seems to be very smart, very powerful, very long-lived, and has access to mind-boggling transportation systems) would not be so restricted as evolution. If it really didn't matter where one looked to find any given "lineage", then that would be a very powerful support for common design IMO. So while I didn't get a direct reply, I consider this an answer to my earlier question (re: a test to show which is the better model: common design or common descent).  :D

Date: 2008/07/16 18:00:48, Link
Author: raguel
FtK:

I admit that I've never heard of that fish before, but in my defense it does have "alligator" in its name. :p  Unless there's a lot of different fish with flat heads, I think my point still stands.


Funny alb mentioned the eyes: I don't know if I was consciously aware of that.


From the angle of the pic of the second fish, it doesn't appear that its head is flat, I could be wrong tho.

Date: 2008/07/16 21:20:07, Link
Author: raguel
It took a few readings and about 2 months, but I think I figured out that Nature paper :)  (Apologies in advance for the long post)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008....ro.html

Quote
More seriously, Timmer should know that a single symposium – even one as fascinating as the Rockefeller event – does not a science make. Consider the topic of anatomical homology, central to arguments about the common ancestry of the animals. Explore Evolution focuses on the revolution in evolutionary theory’s understanding of homology that has been brought about by discoveries in developmental biology and genetics within the past two decades. Many biologists unfamiliar with these findings still hold the standard textbook view that homologous anatomical structures are caused by homologous genes and developmental pathways.

But those textbooks need to be updated. As Günther Wagner (2007, 473) notes,

   Intuitively, one would expect that the historical continuity of morphological characters is underpinned by the continuity of the genes that govern the development of these characters. However, things are not that simple: one of the most important results of the past 15 years of molecular developmental genetics is the realization that homologous characters can have different genetic and developmental bases. This seems paradoxical, because the historical continuity of morphological characters implies continuity of the (genetic) information about the characters.

Are students likely to learn about these discoveries from their standard biology textbooks? No. Will they learn about them in Explore Evolution? Yes.


So will this be in EE then?

Quote
found in the fact that developmental
variation in homologous characters is not
randomly distributed, but affects some
aspects of development more than others.
For example, in D. melanogaster, segmentation
proceeds through three stages that are
controlled by particular genes: gap genes,
which determine larger body regions, the
pair-rule genes, which divide the embryo
into stripes of alternating half segments,
and the segment-polarity genes, which
activate the actual morphogenetic process of
segment formation. Surprisingly, the most
extensive interspecific variation has been
found in the higher levels of the segmentation
hierarchy, namely the gap genes and
the pair-rule genes. Examples are the
pair-rule genes ftz and eve, mentioned above,
and the gap gene bicoid (bcd), which exists
only in the higher Diptera, not even in the
dipteran mosquito Anopheles. By contrast,
the segment-polarity gene network, which
includes the interaction of engrailed (en)
and wingless (wg), seems to be invariant, at
least among insectsThis suggests that the
genetic regulatory network (GRN) that controls
the execution of the segment-specific
morphogenetic processes is less variable
than the upstream processes that activate it.

If the pattern that is suggested by the data
on insect segmentation can be generalized, it
seems that the most conservative parts
of the developmental process are the
GRNs that control the developmental
programme that specifies the identity of
the character; that is, the character identity
network (ChIN). For example, individual
cell types are determined by a characteristic
set of regulatory genes over vast evolutionary
distances. Another example is the genetic
network for the endomesoderm that starfish
and sea urchins share. By contrast, other
aspects of development, from early patterning
to the execution of the developmental
programme, are more variable.
Here I review evidence that shows
that these networks determine character
identity rather than character state, that
non-homologous morphological characters
are determined by non-homologous ChINs,
and that the genes participating in a ChIN
are co-adapted for their task; that is, they are
functionally non-equivalent to orthologues in
species that do not have the character, and
to paralogues that do not participate in the
development of that character.
The idea that the genes that control character
identity are distinct from the genes that
determine the special shape and state of
a character has been well documented in
the case of Ultrabithorax (Ubx) function
in insect wing development...


Quote
Future directions

Consistent with modern views of homology
character identity is not tied
to particular manifest features, like structure,
composition and shape.
Instead,
homologues have a single historical origin,
form a lineage of descent with modification,
and can go extinct. From a developmental
point of view, character identity and thus
homology requires the ability to express
an evolutionarily variable developmental
programme that is different from those
in other parts of the body.

Date: 2008/07/17 14:07:15, Link
Author: raguel
meh, I think I cut off a paragraph or two, and somehow threw off the formatting.

Anyway, EE is supposed to be for high school students right? Even with a PZ article to help me, I found pair-rule genes to be a...challenging topic. It may be my ego talking, but I don't see how one can reasonably expect any high school student to grasp all this. I suppose if the author is only concerned about quote mining to further his apologetics as opposed to actually teaching biology (so no need to learn about those pesky genes or what the words orthologue and paralogue mean), then it's ok.  :)

Date: 2008/07/18 10:49:40, Link
Author: raguel
Quote
"Secret document?" My goodness, David. How "secret" can it be if both you and all the religion-haters know about it? I'm not getting it. Care to explain?



Hah. I don't frequent TT, so I thought you guys were being too rough on Joy.

Date: 2008/07/20 20:54:45, Link
Author: raguel
[quote=Ftk,July 20 2008,19:14]
Quote (afarensis @ July 19 2008,11:14)
Um, Hello? FTK? Are you there? It's been a couple days since I asked you the following questions:

     
Quote
So, FTK, what specific morphology indicates, to you, that Tiktaalik is a fish rather than an transitional tetrapod. Better yet, what morphology would Tiktaalik have to have to be considered, by you, as a transitional tetrapod? What specific features do you see in the australopithecine mandible rule it out as a transitional between, say, Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus anamensis or between Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis?



Anywhooo.....I didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.  They seemed more like a rhetorical questions, IMHO.  You’re basically saying, well yeah, you might not like our interpretation of the fossils, but we know transitionals have to be out there, and we've found these in the right places.  We think they're different enough to be deemed "transitionals".  I think it would be virtually impossible to deem something a transitional (in the factual sense) because most of the fossils seem quite distinctly ape..human...fish, etc.  Without soft parts such as organs, and without living examples, interpretation of anatomy from bony parts alone would seem be, at best, an exercise in educated guesswork.

It was obviously not a rhetorical question. You said before you thought tiktaalik was a "freakish fish" (or something like that) and here again, you intimate that you think it's "distinctly.. a fish". And yet so far you have failed to say what physical features  tiktaalik has that led you to believe that.  It certainly isn't the flat head with eyes on top, because alligators have that feature, yes?


You also didn't say what features a fossil would have to have in order to consider it transitional.


On a side note: if fossils are "distinctly" X, there would be no need for "educated guesswork" at all, and one wouldn't need soft tissue. The fact that there's "educated guesswork" would seem to indicate that there are fossils that aren't "distinctly" X.  What are we to make of these fossils?

Quote
It’s doesn’t really matter though, as I was just making the point that there are flathead fish and there are also fish with eyes on top rather than on the sides.


Well, that's cool and all, but the problem is that you: (a) posted in reply to my post, which didn't come close to addressing my question, and (b) that second fish, while it had eyes on top, didn't address Albatrossity's point (e.g. it doesn't have a flat head as well).

Date: 2008/09/15 12:17:57, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 14 2008,16:39)
OTOH, you Darwinists and your simplistic examples of evolution teach us nothing.  Everyone knows how evolution works, but you've gotta get past the 8th grade explanations about microevolution.  

I swear, at every lecture I've attended, Darwinists have talked about mice, moths, ice fish, finches....good grief, what the heck does that tell us?  We already know that microevolution is fact.  We're looking for the meaty stuff.  You know, the *facts* about *macro*evolution and the empirical evidence backing up those facts.

That's because,outside of paleobiogeography, morphology, genetics,evo-devo, and ERVs, and the consilience of evidence thereof, evolutionists got nothin'.

Date: 2008/09/24 10:42:58, Link
Author: raguel
Quote
Science is no long a search for the truth about our origins, but rather a search for the best current materialist explanation.  Methodological naturalism was not always forced upon scientists, yet today materialists (who own “science” at the moment) deem it the *only* way to conduct science.

...Science should be the search for a true understanding of the cosmos based on empirical evidence, observation, hypothesis and empirical testing through experiment and observation.



It could be that all the science courses I've taken and lab experiments I've done from high school to college have made me dense, but I've seen several IDists/creationists say similar things and I've yet to understand what they are saying. Besides the obvious, that is.

Date: 2009/01/10 23:03:23, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Aardvark @ Jan. 10 2009,08:45)
ftk has updated her blog with an admitted c & p from Creation Safaris (?).

I'd like to think the fact I found that site to be utterly incomprehensible as a sign my understanding of evolution is increasing.  :p

My favorite line (from the How Bambi Gave Rise to Moby Dick entry):
Quote
The team sought the most “parsimonious” tree of descent – but parsimony is a human value, not a whale value.


Take that, evilutionists!!

Date: 2009/01/12 21:00:49, Link
Author: raguel
I partly agree with SD (if for nothing else, concern trolling a known concern troll = lulz). Being a former "fundie" (Southern Baptist, literalist) I find most creationists infuriating. I took a step back and tried to analyze why I take it so personally. Mostly it's because I detest con men and snake oil salesmen but I think it's also partly because I'm embarrassed to have been one of them.

I'd like to think I was never that intellectually dishonest and uninterested in actual science, tho.

Date: 2009/01/15 21:01:04, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (bystander @ Jan. 15 2009,18:55)
Quote (raguel @ Jan. 13 2009,14:00)
I partly agree with SD (if for nothing else, concern trolling a known concern troll = lulz). Being a former "fundie" (Southern Baptist, literalist) I find most creationists infuriating. I took a step back and tried to analyze why I take it so personally. Mostly it's because I detest con men and snake oil salesmen but I think it's also partly because I'm embarrassed to have been one of them.

I'd like to think I was never that intellectually dishonest and uninterested in actual science, tho.

I don't know any fundies personally. Do you think most are like you (able to be convinced given evidence) or like FTK (fingers in ears going la la la)?

I agree with you about the kids however. Whenever I talk about atheism, I always say that this is what I believe and why and that others have other beliefs.

I probably bend over backwards to give the kids the message that no matter what they will be welcome to our home.

I think that with Ftk she is going to have a lot of problems - either they will end up being extreme like her (which will cause them problems with their peers as I think all this crap is receding with the young'uns) or end up extreme the other way.

Most people I know aren't the reflective sort when it comes to religion (at least they never admitted it to me, anyway). I hardly ever talk to fundies about evolution IRL because they are a lot like everyone else you see on the internet: they learn just enough for their Apologetics.

I think I stopped being a fundie before I accepted evolution. People joke about the bible being the best argument for atheism. It was certainly true in my case. OT God is evil, insane and as petty as any Greek god. NT God isn't much better.

Date: 2009/02/08 19:14:17, Link
Author: raguel
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

I saw this from Richard's link:

Quote
At first you might think so. After all, nothing is more natural than a reaction between acids and bases. Perhaps you’ve used soda (a base) to clean acid from a battery. The fizz is an acid-base reaction. So is using “Tums” to neutralize stomach acid. Nothing is more common than reactions between acids and bases. If you just wait long enough, acid-base reactions will get DNA and protein working together, and life will appear—right? Wrong! Just the opposite.

The problem is that the properties of bases and acids produce the wrong relationship for living systems. Acid-base reactions would “scramble up” DNA and protein units in all sorts of “deadly” combinations. These reactions would prevent, not promote, the use of DNA to code protein production. Since use of DNA to code protein production is the basis of all life on earth, these acid-base reactions would prevent, not promote, the evolution of life by chemical processes based on the inherent properties of matter.


Soo, acid-base reactions are the only chemical reactions? Let me guess, all the other ones were invented by evil materialists who didn't want this truth to be known?

Date: 2009/02/08 20:27:59, Link
Author: raguel
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 08 2009,20:00)
I gave chemistry facts that would hinder or prevent spontaneous generation--not theories.  I never get answers--just usually names, or diversions by one means or another.

Wes gave you links that answers your questions. Didn't you read them?

Date: 2009/02/10 00:59:43, Link
Author: raguel
Y'know, if I was interested in learning, thought that racemic mixtures was lethal to abiogenesis, and someone mentioned "homochirality", I'd like to think I'd show some Christian humility and take the time to actually find out what "homochirality" was, and if I didn't understand something, ask questions. But then I'm a hardcore propagandist, not an earnest truth-seeker like RFJE.

Date: 2009/02/11 21:47:50, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 11 2009,07:55)
For more, much more, RFJE blustering, please stop by and visit the UK Board I have linked to.

RFJE - If this is NOT you, please let us know.

kthnxbai
Female First Board

Looks like RFJE loves her /him some UK talk.  No wonder RFJE and Louis get along so well! :)

Well, here's part of a RFJE's post on that thread, dated 02/08/09:

Quote
Evolution and the Origin of Life: Real Problems

The origin of life is one of the biggest problems for evolution, because of it's committment to naturalism. That is, that all processes in the universe are explainable using only natural laws. Virtually all other sciences can be explained by natural laws, but there are very real and ignored problems with how the first life began.

We have all heard of the "primordial soup" model of life. That at a point in early earth history, the molten earth cooled, and oceans formed. As rain fell, chemicals in a hypothetical pool organized into proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates. These molecules then organized into cellular structures like proteins, DNA, and cell membranes.

The following are proven chemistry facts that are not shared with the average science illiterate population.



I see oodles and oodles of CSI. I bet if someone used teh Explanatory Filter, they will discover that that post was in fact designed.  :p

Date: 2009/02/15 19:03:34, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 15 2009,14:46)
If RFJE holds to usual religious antievolutionist form, trying to deal with theistic evolution and theistic evolutionists is going to be a huge problem for him.

Am I the only one amused by the fact RFJE never responded to Wes? It's probably a coincidence but I gets mah lulz where I can.  :D

Date: 2009/02/19 00:04:38, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 18 2009,23:04)
RFJE:

 
Quote

Louis, you really need to talk to these science people that keep disagreeing with you about protein and water.


Help me out here. I looked over the entire thread, and didn't manage to find a single thing said by Louis concerning "protein and water" that any of your citations put in any doubt. Where, I ask, will I find such?

In his very first post, he talked about the hydrolysis of amino acids. Later, he talked about the reaction to make protein and its conformation due to hydrophilic/hydrophobic effects, and claimed that it confirmed one of the points he made. From these and his latest remark, I gather RFJE thinks hydrolysis = water solubility.

Date: 2009/02/19 00:27:29, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,00:09)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 18 2009,23:54)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 18 2009,23:12)
I'm amazed anyone could make heads or tails of that word salad of RFJE's.

Okay, so  I *THINK* he's trying to make the claim that if the early Earth atmosphere was "dominated" by CO2...then it had to be *exactly* like Venus today--complete with sulfuric acid clouds?  

There's a vague gesture towards UV as damaging to DNA/RNA...A mention of archaea and cyanobacteria. The Hadean.

By golly, I think this is some sort of argument against abiogenesis -- except written by a  disciple of KairosFocus, on a hellishly powerful toad extract.

I think there is also confusion between oxygen as a constituent of water and CO2 and oxygen as O2. As it swirled past I believe I caught a glimpse of the notion that anything toxic to us must also have been toxic to early life.

No, Richard, there is no confusion.  My argument is that the element O was on earth.  It was bonded to C and H (CO2, H2O).  I know the difference between O2 and O.  I'm not that ignorant.

I do not have time to sit at a comp all day and discuss this.  I work and many of these questions come to me as I study and think about them at work.  That's why you get a rough draft.  Would you like a thesis?  Then you'll be whining about how long I take to get back.

DO you guys have to criticize everything or could we have some discourse?

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I'd prefer it if you took the time to understand what it is you're disagreeing with (and the underlying science) before posting. It'll do wonders to the quality of responses you'll get. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but then I don't post screeds declaring abiogenesis happened/couldnt have happened either.

I haven't seen anyone here dispute the presence of oxygen (the element) on Earth.  Your argument therefore is that water and carbon dioxide would react the same as oxygen (the molecule) simply because they all have oxygen (the atom/element). This is false, and you would have avoided making such an obvious mistake if you took the time to learn Chemistry.

Date: 2009/02/19 19:27:17, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 19 2009,01:08)
Quote (raguel @ Feb. 19 2009,00:27)
I haven't seen anyone here dispute the presence of oxygen (the element) on Earth.  Your argument therefore is that water and carbon dioxide would react the same as oxygen (the molecule) simply because they all have oxygen (the atom/element). This is false, and you would have avoided making such an obvious mistake if you took the time to learn Chemistry.

No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying.  I am not saying CO2 and H2O react the same as O or O2.

O RLY? Then what's this supposed to mean:

Quote
The oxygen catastrophe  www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambian/proterastrat.html
The first "pollution crisis" hit the Earth about 2.2 billion years ago. Several pieces of evidence -- the presence of iron oxides in paleosols (fossil soils), the appearance of "red beds" containing metal oxides, and others -- point to a fairly rapid increase in levels of oxygen in the atmosphere at about this time.

This is a non-deduction.  Deduction requires the ruling out of all other possibilities.  It is circumstantial evidence.  The oxides could have been caused by water.  You know creationist would stick this in their model too.  Another scenario built on a variable.

** I have also  read about how some believe iron deposits show evidence of O2.  Fe++ to Fe+++ (are these ions or what, I really need to take chemistry, so sue me).  This is an admitted hypothesis.  Again water is a possibility.





Quote
According to the evolutionary model there was enough O atoms to bind with H (H2O) to make enough water vapor to create the oceans after the earth cooled.

This is my point.  The MODEL is A THEORY created in someone's mind, and the theory shoots itself in the foot--If you've got enough O atoms to make enough H2O vapor to create OCEANS, then you've got alot of oygen.  Who is to say that it wouldn't bind with itself above the surface.  Why does nitrogen have to go all the way under ground and then come out of volcanoes?  It could have just as well stayed above the surface and formed an atmosphere.  Or it could permeate the earth underground and in the atmosphere.

But there is only one reason for this theory.  Evolution had to have it or abiogeneis wouldn't work.  Alot of O2 would have spelled disaster.


Yeah, this is a problem. If only there was a field of study in which we could determine experimentally why molecules react the way they do. That way we could predict what products would form, based on initial conditions. I propose we name this new field "chemistry".

Date: 2009/02/24 18:56:58, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 24 2009,02:03)
There's a view common in literalist circles about correctness. IIRC, God is supposed to keep believers on the track of truth. Being wrong means not just that one had a synapse misfire, but that God no longer has your back. Admitting that one was wrong, then, means that one also admits to something akin to no longer being in a state of grace. If, that is, one accepts that meme as being worth something. Personally, I don't think much of many of the ideas common in literalist circles, and certainly one that predisposes people to cling to error out of fear is impressive, albeit in the negative direction.

Yay, papal inerrancy for everyone!

Date: 2009/02/28 09:20:00, Link
Author: raguel
Quote
For the purposes of this debate, if you wish to continue it here, when we say macroevolution we are talking about the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. Write that down.


Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that mean man/chimp evolution from a common ancestor is an example of microevolution?

Date: 2009/04/11 02:30:36, Link
Author: raguel
Happy Birthday :)
(I'm not late, just 364 days early  :p )

Date: 2009/04/21 23:29:42, Link
Author: raguel
Happy Birthday Abbie  :D

Date: 2009/07/09 11:43:41, Link
Author: raguel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-K_VY6VZZw


hahahaha

Date: 2009/07/21 14:57:55, Link
Author: raguel
OT: I've experienced the mixed emotions that come with being moderated by a creationist, even though one's response was well within the reported policy.

Apparently that QD vs Luskin really stung, so user CreationistsWON created a hit piece that only an attack gerbil could love:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8xJa6RSJ04&feature=related

It's pretty tedious, so I'll forgive you (lolz) if you don't make it to the last clip featuring the Q v L vid. If you do, you'll notice something missing, You might think, as I did (posting as NiallCosgrach, don't tell anyone  :p) that this was intentionally edited out. Not so!!

 
Quote
It's not edited my friend, the middle part is missing because it wouldn't fit the range of 11 min, i explained that in the response clip. Lusking sayd he? didn't do it, and didn't answer the question if someone from their side did it, he only sayd things about misinformation.

But i know why you're willing to believe yourself, this clip does show you truth, and it hurts you


After I stopped giggling, I checked out his "response clip", where he even admitted to "removing" the bits (in order to fit within 11 min max). So I made two responses:

1. What's the difference between "editing" and "removing"

2. If his video shows truth, why does he claim (in the video) that Luskin tried to answer the questions, but admits in his reply to me that he didn't answer the question (in fact, he didn't answer any questions at all).

I wish I had used screenshots for what happened next. About a day went by without my responses showing up, but others were. Eventually they did show up, and I was going to thank him for this. When I had time to reply, they were gone again.  :D

So, I'm feeling a bit upset about being censored, but I find his silence particularly delicious, given his "the truth hurts" crack.  :)

Date: 2009/07/25 11:31:33, Link
Author: raguel
Thunderf00t, youtube user, had a discussion with Comfort. It's separated into 10 parts. Most of it has to do with philosophy/religion. One exception is in this video, where tf00t tries to explain speciation at around the 5:50 mark. Comfort's reply is one the books:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKJUnZRptIM&feature=related

(if there's a way to embed the video here, please tell me. )

Date: 2009/07/27 13:44:32, Link
Author: raguel
Isn't Cornelius ignoring this bit:

Quote
The reason why the recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, makes a big detour around the aorta before attaching to the larynx is perfectly understandable by evolution (the nerve and artery used to line up, but the artery evolved backwards, constraining the nerve to move with it



I tried to read his post at his website, but I didn't see anything that contradicted what PZ wrote. I also don't see a way to reply on his website.

Date: 2009/08/10 15:17:44, Link
Author: raguel
Quote
Nak, that you cling to such a dubious prediction of Tikaalek, as controversial a transitional as ever, which was based as much on known geography of the time as to anything else



Someone should tell ba77 that he's dangerously close to accepting paleobiogeography. He should repent and have some priest sprinkle holy water on him or something.

Date: 2009/09/01 22:29:02, Link
Author: raguel
Happy Birthday  :)

Date: 2009/11/12 00:25:09, Link
Author: raguel
it's still the 11th here :p

Happy birthday  :D

Date: 2009/12/24 21:47:28, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 22 2006,21:48)
Hi guys.

Here's wishing you and your families a happy and prosperous 2007. Although we clearly disagree on topics such as science and religion, I'd like to thank you for the entertainment.



Rich

LOL  post of the decade IMO  :D

Happy Holidays

Date: 2010/01/02 11:21:55, Link
Author: raguel
Your concern troll is concerned.  :p

Date: 2010/01/02 14:00:26, Link
Author: raguel
wth is Joseph trying to say? Is he really giving evidence of nested hierarchies to disprove nested hierarchies? Is he trying to say something like "if evolution is true, why are humans still mammals?"

Date: 2010/01/10 01:06:40, Link
Author: raguel
Will Casey join Hovind in the pokey?  :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....ture=iv

Date: 2010/01/11 22:36:58, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 11 2010,18:27)
Thanks, all. I am recovering, and yes, I am probably a tough old bird.

Glad to hear you're doing better.

Date: 2010/01/17 12:03:36, Link
Author: raguel
Happy Birthday  :D

Date: 2010/01/20 19:15:56, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 20 2010,18:55)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 20 2010,18:40)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 20 2010,18:35)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 21 2010,12:28)
If you're really Jerry, say something about No Free Lunch in your next comment over there.

Well I'll be...

NO WAY!

Rich, you are god.

We are not worthy!!!!!!!


Seconded. You've won about a gazillion internets (which will be overnighted).

Part me likes to think they still won't ban Jerry, because that will be tacit admission that they can't tell fake tard from real tard.  It's their own fault for not calculating the PFCSI  on Jerry's posts. :D

Date: 2010/02/08 11:38:37, Link
Author: raguel
Quote
CJYman: Probability of attaining all one-handedness = 1/2 ^34,350


I'm sure I know the answer already but how was this number calculated? It's been awhile since I took any Chemistry courses, but I'd say (without the presence of a catalyst) the probability exactly zero (well, technically I suppose one could treat every potential product molecule as a coin toss and go from there, but then that number would depend on the starting conditions, and somehow I doubt they bothered with that).

Date: 2010/02/18 12:22:19, Link
Author: raguel
Happy B-day  :D

Date: 2010/02/18 13:07:34, Link
Author: raguel
Every time someone bumps this, I keep hoping to see a post by Paul Nelson saying they are creating a forum for EE. Oh well, maybe next time.

Date: 2010/03/11 11:26:23, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:29)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 11 2010,10:25)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,10:21)
Hydrogen is an element- an atom.

The clouds contain molecular hydrogen, Joe.  You know, H2.

Geez asshole you lied and were caught lying.

Now you are running all over the place with the goalposts as if that helps you.

What a limpdick russian bastard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW_jvLbAqMg

Date: 2010/03/19 01:21:32, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 18 2010,20:04)
Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 18 2010,19:35)
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,13:58)
I thought I'd make a quick post this afternoon just as a way of letting those who care to know that I have read all of the posts up until now and will work to respond in a timely fashion. However, you must realize that to my (somewhat) surprise, my inbox was filled with about 25 alerts from this forum regarding your replies. So, I have my work cut out for me.
Emphasis added, and timestamp noted without comment...

That is three in a freakin' row.  First cdanner, then daevans, and now bjray.  WTH, don't these creationists have any cojones?

I'm not the smartest or most articulate of persons, but IMO there seems to be something missing in their education. They seemed prepared to discuss evolution vs. creationism from a socio-political standpoint, but wholly unprepared (and apparently unaware how unprepared) to discuss any science. Perhaps Dr. Dr. D should make some adjustments to the course.  :)

Date: 2010/03/22 21:25:15, Link
Author: raguel
Happy Birthday Kristine

Oh and to Mr. Christopher as well, even though he's still not a cute chick  :p

Date: 2010/04/29 08:54:28, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 28 2010,05:29)
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 27 2010,07:50)
I signed up for TownHall to drop a comment on Sheldon's Hawking envy blog entry. Dang, but that was painful to read.

His Homochirality and Darwin post isn't much better.  I read it this far:      
Quote
(BTW, this requires that life not be "optimal", which is contrary to experiment.)

I posted a little response. I kept it simple (to my level of competence. Hopefully I didn't make any errors  :p )

Quote
I'm curious why the article mentions Darwin in this at all. AFAIK Darwin was not a chemist and didn't have much to say on the matter.

Several years ago I took a few graduate level organic chem courses. I learned that some catalysts can make the activation energy to form one of the compounds lower than its mirror image, thereby increasing the concentration of one over the other, even achieving homochirality. I realize this is not a science blog, but since "homochirality" is in the title, one would hope this would have been mentioned.


I think that last paragraph could have been phrased better, but I think I got my point across.

Date: 2010/07/07 10:19:05, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Zachriel @ June 24 2010,11:16)
Quote (khan @ June 05 2010,13:43)
We all have our limits.

Speaking of limits, don't even think about looking at this thread, wherein Zachriel and Joe G 'discuss' the nested hierarchy, a.k.a. Pattern X.

After reading that dreadful post re: embryology, I'm curious: who coined the phrase "gill slits"? I'm assuming it was von Baer, but I don't know for sure.

Date: 2010/09/29 01:38:26, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 28 2010,09:55)
gpuccio explains how to calculate dFSCI and then explains why it's impossible to calculate:
 
Quote
Then, we can simply compute the dFSCI implied in each of the n-1 transitions, and sum those values. That is perfectly possible. After you have given the explicit pathway of transitions and intermediates which your model refers to.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any of those detailed models. So, for the moment, we can be happy with computing the dFSCI of a protein family and, in the complete absence of any model which can explain its origin, and in good awareness that a purely random model could never originate it, maintain design as the best hypothesis.

Emphasis in original. And who is claiming that a "purely random model" could explain the origin of anything, anyway?
Duh. So if they've never calculated the dFSCI for anything other then a single protein how do they know the flagellum is designed?

I'm assuming by dFSCI he means "the change in FSCI". If that's the case, what difference does it make what the pathways are?

7 + (x + y - z) = 10

(x + y - z) = 3 all day long no matter what x, y, and z are.

Date: 2010/11/11 11:18:15, Link
Author: raguel
Happy birthday :)

Date: 2011/09/28 21:41:50, Link
Author: raguel
Quote
Problem 1: The first problem is that the examples Venema offers did not demonstrate new genetic information arising in the form of, as Meyer asks for it, “fundamentally new genes and proteins.”



That's dangerously close to "homology disproves evolution".  Or is there a more fair interpretation? Apparently not, since teh gerbil failed to provide one.

Date: 2012/03/07 21:17:13, Link
Author: raguel
Happy birthday!

I turn 44 this year and I've been seriously considering going back to school so this gives me hope.  :)

Date: 2012/03/07 21:40:20, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 07 2012,16:37)
It's "viewpoint equivalence" evolved into "ignorance equivalence"

Teach the no-one understands controversy!

I read that, possibly less charitably, as  he doesn't understand how some people find science interesting. It's funny that now that I'm out of college I read more science article than I ever did when I was earning my degree.  (and most of it is on biology, which I found to be dull in high school and in college)


It's a pretty jaw-dropping quote, at any rate.

Date: 2012/09/07 15:28:13, Link
Author: raguel
I think Jerry should get an award for something. What ever happened to him, anyway?

Date: 2012/09/17 21:33:09, Link
Author: raguel
For you afdave fans, he recently said wild animals don't get sick:

http://www.talkrational.org/showthr....1915314

Quote
The way to deal with the antibiotic resistance problem is to live our lives as closely as possible to the way the Creator intended. Deer, turkey, raccoons, opossums and such live far closer to the way the Creator intended than humans in "civilized" society do. These wild creatures do not have problems with bacterial infections and all the other problems that "civilized" humans have, thus there is no problem with antibiotic resistance because no antibiotics are ever needed at all.

Date: 2012/11/28 02:30:52, Link
Author: raguel
Has anyone ever noticed that creationists behave as if kinetic and thermodynamic issues don't matter when discussing the chemistry involved? It's like they've never heard of catalysts or activation energy.

Date: 2012/11/28 13:06:13, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.

You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?

Date: 2012/11/28 15:23:47, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,14:29)
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 28 2012,13:06)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
For example, if we are studying nucleotides, rather than 2 possibilities (heads or tails in the case of a fair coin) there would be 4 possibilities because there are 4 existing nucleotides......We can also calculate the CSI of certain amino acids forming a protein chain (polypeptide)....etc.

You're assuming that all possibilities are equal, as in with a coin. To make that assumption, you're going to have to also assume the environment that these reactions occur in. They are not going to be anywhere near equal in an organism, and they won't be equal in the presence of a catalyst. So what conditions are you basing your "math" on?

The environment is irrelevant. A coin has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails no matter if you are in the Sahara Desert, a condo in Branson, MO, the peak of Mt. Everest or on Mars.

It's the same with the amino acids I calculated forming a polypeptide.
[/quote]

OMG that's the funniest thing I've read since "butterfly wombs" . Out of curiosity, and the satisfaction of my mind, have you taken any chemistry courses ever in your life? If so, I would love to hear why you think starting conditions have no impact on chemical reactions.

Quote
But, I think I know where you are wanting to go


I'm betting you don't.

Quote
Would natural selection have any effect on the outcome of probability mathematics? How about concerning beneficial and detrimental mutations.

More precisely....could natural selection begin to weed out some heads in the coin toss and possibly even insert tails or bass ackards?

What do you think?


I don't know if it's strictly NS but I think some mutations don't lead to offspring that will develop at all, so the offspring that are actually born aren't really going to be a representative sample of all possible mutations a population could have (in terms of mathematical as opposed to real world).

Date: 2012/11/28 15:26:29, Link
Author: raguel
Jerry:

Do you think I have a 50% chance at beating Tiger Woods in golf?

Date: 2012/11/28 16:41:18, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,14:29)
The environment is irrelevant.

 

But earlier wrote (c/p?) this:
     
Quote

Of course, chemical reactions are not coins and this happens a bit different in the real world.

For two atoms to “bond” (join together into a molecule) they must be within an “interacting neighborhood.” In fact, in order for two atoms to react together, they must be in the area of about 100 picometers (10 to the -10 power meters) in distance from one another.

The universe is big. And atoms must be moving in order to come into the “neighborhood” of another atom. The faster they are moving, the more opportunities they have to form a bond.

But this gets a little hairy because if they are moving too fast, the momentum will shoot them past each other before they can bond.

And, the temperature can‘t be too cold as reactions will not effectively occur and if it is too hot more bonds will be broken than are formed, and even when the temperatures are perfect, “bonds” of a long molecular chain may be broken simply because a random high energy atom or molecule knocks it loose. The point is, there is a certain finite number of opportunities available, even in 50 billion years for a reaction to occur in reality



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....6eBajkw

Date: 2012/11/28 16:54:19, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,16:38)
...This is a great example of all I'm getting from this this entire forum.....It's wrong...or you're an idiot...or ???? Would you care to tell WHAT is wrong with the polypeptide forming from a racemic solution analogy? Is the math wrong, do you not understand the chemical terms in it, do you disagree with....well, WHAT...I have no idea how to respond if you don't even make an attempt to overcome the argument presented to you. You guys so far would just be a lay-down in formal debate in a debate forum.....

If we ignore chemistry for a bit here if we are talking about polypeptides forming from several nucleotides there won't be a racemic solution. You'll get one polypeptide and it's mirror image (assuming the mirror image isn't itself), another polypeptide and it's mirror image, etc. Of course that's if you ignore petty details like kinetics and thermodynamics, which you seem intent on doing.

eta: ok I read what Jerry wrote a bit wrong. I'll write more in a bit.

Date: 2012/11/28 18:41:28, Link
Author: raguel
Quote
A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely “racemized.” The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. That’s not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. That’s not bad odds for this type of thing.


Apologies in advance but I don't know how to do post/subscripts:

The bolded part can be assumed to be true if and only if the products are either identical or mirror images of one another. (One can't assume that the Ea or dH are equal unless the products are identical or mirror images. Rule of thumb I learned from chem courses is that if there are different compounds then more than likely they are at different energy levels. The only exception one can count on are enantiomers. Everything else has to be experimentally determined.)Why? Because if the activation energies are different enough you'll only see one product. If they are the same but the products have different energy levels and they are in equilibrium, then the products will form at the same rate but over time the product at the lower energy level will be formed in greater amounts.

So the larger the polypeptide chain, the worse your assumption (that all products have equal chance of formation) is.

 
Quote
Short "soundbites" won't further your debate...only well written, thought provoking posts will. Anyone reading this knows that when I stated: "The environment is irrelevant" I was referring to coin tosses and polypeptides forming from a racemic amino acid solution. Nothing else.


Even if that were true it doesn't help you at all, as I explained above, and as I implied before (and I'm guessing Ogre supplied links to) in the presence of a catalyst you can get homochirality. This is stuff I learned in the 90s (although not directly related to evolution; just organic chemistry).

Date: 2012/11/29 11:32:56, Link
Author: raguel
Quote
They ARE mirror images.......



Quote
And I DID NOT SAY that that the reactions of ALL amino acids are equal (whatever that means).

Date: 2012/11/29 15:21:04, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 29 2012,09:31)
They ARE mirror images.......that's what the the left handed and right handed refers to when we are discussing Enantiomers (Enantiomers are what I'm talking about). You don't need to take a chemistry class to know this, just look up the term:

"either of a pair of optical isomers that are mirroe images of each other..."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse.....ntiomer

Earlier you also wrote:
     
Quote
And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000


So before it was only implicit, but now you're explicitly stating that because a reaction starts with enantiomers, the products are going to be enantiomers, and you think there are 10^15,000 (hypothetical?) proteins that are mirror images of each other. I wouldn't expect an undergrad to make such a ridiculous error, but you claim to be a chemist. I stand by my original assessment.  :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ki....r

They aren't all going to be enantiomers. They may be isomers, and possibly even stereoisomers. Some of those stereoisomers will be enantiomers of each other (which may or not be itself), but the rest will be diasteriomers (that may also have a mirror image).

I can only imagine you still don't get it at this point. Let's try an example and see what happens. Suppose there's a chiral compound A(s), and it's mirror image A® and they can form a dimer. A(s)-A® and A(s)-A(s) are not enantiomers. They are diasteriomers. Do you agree or disagree?


And if they aren't all going to be enantiomers or the same product then you don't know ahead of time the odds of any one of them forming.

     
Quote
A catalyst is simply an additional chemical added that increases the rate of a chemical reaction. What catalyst are you talking about and what is it you think it does to enantiomers when added to a racemic mixture?


Yes, catalysts increase (or decrease) the rate of a chemical reaction. They do so by interacting with the transitional state, lowering the activation energy.

In a reaction of enantiomers forming enantiomers the transition states are also enantiomers. However if there's a chiral catalyst is introduced, the transition states are no longer enantiomers but diasteriomers, so now they have different activation energies,therefore different rates, and so there will no longer be a racemic mix.

Here's an example from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._note-3

(as an aside this conversation actually became productive: I don't think I've ever seen the phrase "ground state diasteriomers" before. I'll have to look into it).

Date: 2012/11/29 17:20:34, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 29 2012,16:25)
 
Quote
They aren't all going to be enantiomers. They may be isomers, and possibly even stereoisomers. Some of those stereoisomers will be enantiomers of each other (which may or not be itself), but the rest will be diasteriomers (that may also have a mirror image).

I can only imagine you still don't get it at this point. Let's try an example and see what happens. Suppose there's a chiral compound A(s), and it's mirror image A® and they can form a dimer. A(s)-A® and A(s)-A(s) are not enantiomers. They are diasteriomers. Do you agree or disagree?

And if they aren't all going to be enantiomers or the same product then you don't know ahead of time the odds of any one of them forming.


Why would I agree or disagree, it's all irrelevant to anything I've stated.

But, I'm curious...... all of that means.....exactly what to you? How is it relevant to you? I'll reserve comment until you expand on your point....

     

LOL. Well, let's start with something simple then. You originally wrote this:

 
Quote
The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein.


But you didn't show how you came up with that equation. I assumed you came to the above conclusion because you think, for reasons you alone can verify, that each possible reaction at each step has the same chance.  (For example, say that there's already a polypeptide P and one is reacting it with a racemic mixture of arginine. You are claiming that there's an equal chance of P-A(l) and P-A(d) forming.) If that's not what you meant,show us how you determined that probability. If you did mean that, please explain why you are assuming that each possibility has an equal chance.

Date: 2012/11/29 17:25:37, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 29 2012,17:09)
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 29 2012,11:32)
Quote
They ARE mirror images.......



 
Quote
And I DID NOT SAY that that the reactions of ALL amino acids are equal (whatever that means).

Let me guess....this post is Zen?  :p

It's just something of what you've written that I decided to highlight, for reasons clear to everyone except you apparently.

Date: 2012/11/30 14:15:12, Link
Author: raguel
Anybody know how to get in touch with Louis (or have a better handle on the chemistry than I do)? I tried google but I can't find anything I understand wrt "ground state diasteriomers." I can only assume in special cases there's some stabilization going on, depending on the conformation but I dunno.

Date: 2012/11/30 15:52:25, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 30 2012,14:53)
oh man please introduce louis to these twanks

LOL why would I do that to Louis? He's always been cool with me.  :)


Is twanks a new word? A mix of crank + ?  :p

Date: 2012/12/02 13:29:06, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (raguel @ Nov. 29 2012,17:20)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 29 2012,16:25)
   
Quote
They aren't all going to be enantiomers. They may be isomers, and possibly even stereoisomers. Some of those stereoisomers will be enantiomers of each other (which may or not be itself), but the rest will be diasteriomers (that may also have a mirror image).

I can only imagine you still don't get it at this point. Let's try an example and see what happens. Suppose there's a chiral compound A(s), and it's mirror image A® and they can form a dimer. A(s)-A® and A(s)-A(s) are not enantiomers. They are diasteriomers. Do you agree or disagree?

And if they aren't all going to be enantiomers or the same product then you don't know ahead of time the odds of any one of them forming.


Why would I agree or disagree, it's all irrelevant to anything I've stated.

But, I'm curious...... all of that means.....exactly what to you? How is it relevant to you? I'll reserve comment until you expand on your point....

     

LOL. Well, let's start with something simple then. You originally wrote this:

   
Quote
The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the “n” th power. And “n” is the number of attached amino acids in the protein.


But you didn't show how you came up with that equation. I assumed you came to the above conclusion because you think, for reasons you alone can verify, that each possible reaction at each step has the same chance.  (For example, say that there's already a polypeptide P and one is reacting it with a racemic mixture of arginine. You are claiming that there's an equal chance of P-A(l) and P-A(d) forming.) If that's not what you meant,show us how you determined that probability. If you did mean that, please explain why you are assuming that each possibility has an equal chance.

Any thoughts on this yet?Remember to show your work

Date: 2012/12/02 14:59:39, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,13:54)
I have already shown my work....why must I keep reposting and reposting this stuff.....I KNOW I did that one at least 3 times now....lol. You seem another one that simply wants to pretend I did not.

Jerry, you haven't shown your work, at least not explicitly.

 
Quote


     
Quote


ME: But, I'm curious...... all of that means.....exactly what to you? How is it relevant to you? I'll reserve comment until you expand on your point....

YOUR RESPONSE: LOL. Well, let's start with something simple then. You originally wrote this:


You ignored my reply to you, then seem to want to go on to something else.....You are NOT going to expand on that point because you KNOW it is irrelevant to the conversation? OK, then that point of debate goes to me and we can talk about the weather or something.


It's completely relevant based on assertions you've made, but every time we disprove one of these assertions, you claim you didn't make it.

So let's just start all over Jerrry:

 
Quote
Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker.

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely “racemized.” The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of “right-handed” and “left-handed” molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.


Enantiomers, got it in one. :)

Quote
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


Note the bold. What you are claiming here is that two different protein chains have the same odds of being produced, but you haven't explicitly said why that is true I assumed you came to the above conclusion because you think, for reasons you alone can verify, that the two possible reactions has the same chance of occurring. What I've been trying to get across to you is that you can only make that claim if and only if two conditions are met: (1) that the proteins produced are enantiomers, and (2) that there are no catalysts present.

One can only assume you disagree with what I've put forward, but so far you've claimed ignorance as to how anything I've said is relevant. I stand by my original hypothesis.  :)

eta: btw Jerry, in case you haven't noticed, Ogre and I are asking you the same question, but in different ways :)

Date: 2012/12/02 15:20:08, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 02 2012,15:15)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 02 2012,14:50)
Well, great, just great.  Now we have an FtK impersonator doing a GaryG impersonation of JoeG!

It always comes down to Joe "the Null set is not a set" G, doesn't it.

Let's see Ftk as Gary doing Joe G writes, ah hem, "lol ... lol ... LOL ... smiley face ... shocked face ... lol ... lol ... lol"

What disappoints me about Jerry the Dog-faced Boy bullshitter is how predictable and BORING is the bullshit.  I mean, he/she doesn't even try to be as eloquent as Davison or grumpy like Batshit77 or touchy like FL or flouncy like FtK.  

Nope, just drool and farts and stained panties.  At least JoeG had the common decency to get all liquored up, ignore his spell checker and entertain us with pure spittle-flecked idiocy, unlike this current batch of limp-dicked, dribbling wankers.

Kids these days, I dunno.

agreed the tard of the days of yore was far superior to this warmed over pot meets kettle phoned in mealy pablum

Well I have to admit that I was expecting Jerry to write something more entertaining than "I don't understand chemistry or math, therefore I win the argument", and then go full Socrates (the poster) on us.  ???

Date: 2012/12/02 16:24:13, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 02 2012,16:17)
Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,16:20)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 02 2012,15:15)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 02 2012,14:50)
Well, great, just great.  Now we have an FtK impersonator doing a GaryG impersonation of JoeG!

It always comes down to Joe "the Null set is not a set" G, doesn't it.

Let's see Ftk as Gary doing Joe G writes, ah hem, "lol ... lol ... LOL ... smiley face ... shocked face ... lol ... lol ... lol"

What disappoints me about Jerry the Dog-faced Boy bullshitter is how predictable and BORING is the bullshit.  I mean, he/she doesn't even try to be as eloquent as Davison or grumpy like Batshit77 or touchy like FL or flouncy like FtK.  

Nope, just drool and farts and stained panties.  At least JoeG had the common decency to get all liquored up, ignore his spell checker and entertain us with pure spittle-flecked idiocy, unlike this current batch of limp-dicked, dribbling wankers.

Kids these days, I dunno.

agreed the tard of the days of yore was far superior to this warmed over pot meets kettle phoned in mealy pablum

Well I have to admit that I was expecting Jerry to write something more entertaining than "I don't understand chemistry or math, therefore I win the argument", and then go full Socrates (the poster) on us.  ???

i hold out hope, but i think i have seen this episode before

Eh, well he just laid out some serious stupid, but it took way too much time for me to coax it out of him.

Date: 2012/12/02 17:09:40, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,15:48)
Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,14:59)

 
Quote

It's completely relevant based on assertions you've made, but every time we disprove one of these assertions, you claim you didn't make it.


My friend, you, or no one else on here has proven or disproven ANYTHING since I've been reading in. Cubist is the ONLY one to even challenge me in a logical manner that I could intelligently address and HE seems to have left...

Sure I have Jerry, you just claim what I've written is irrelevant. I really hope you believe that's true, so I can wrest what little entertainment there can be out of this thread.  :)

Jerry, you wrote the first bit earlier but mysteriously left it out in your most recent reply:

 
Quote
 
Quote
Jerry:So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


 
Quote
raguel:What you are claiming here is that two different protein chains have the same odds of being produced, but you haven't explicitly said why that is true I assumed you came to the above conclusion because you think, for reasons you alone can verify, that the two possible reactions has the same chance of occurring. What I've been trying to get across to you is that you can only make that claim if and only if two conditions are met: (1) that the proteins produced are enantiomers, and (2) that there are no catalysts present.


At this point I could go through line by line your most recent response and go back and show you exactly what other things you've said that were just inane, but you did write this:

 
Quote
please directly address my post......line by line if that helps you stay on topic.


This sounds like a good idea, if only for my own amusement.

Ok let's start here then:

 
Quote
No, where in that writing did I ever MENTION two protein chains being built, calculating the probabilities of both??


ROFL Jerry YOU are the one who wrote this:

Quote
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


Let's say the original protein chain is P, and the amino acid is A. A has two forms A(l) and A®, which are enantiomers right? So if A(l) reacts with P it produces P-A(l), and if A® reacts with P, it produces P-A® right?

If you disagree please state why

Remember let's just go line by line for right now. If you agree say so. If not say so, and that's it. We'll move on from there.  :)

Date: 2012/12/02 17:25:36, Link
Author: raguel
Btw Jerry this:

 
Quote
And the chirality of the formed protein could not be MORE irrelevant. Concentrate on amino acids forming a polypeptide...we don't care about the polypeptide after the event.


really cracked me up. If you can figure out why you're  wrong here on your own you'll impress the hell out of me, but I suspect you won't.  :)

I'll get around to explaining why, but we'll go line by line like I promised and come back to this, if you still don't get it.

edit to add: I should point out here that I've already explained why, but it had to do with those pesky issues like kinetics and thermodynamics that Jerry didn't get the first time, but whatevs. Baby steps and all that.

Date: 2012/12/02 17:28:14, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,17:25)
   
Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,17:09)
     
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,15:48)
       
Quote (raguel @ Dec. 02 2012,14:59)

         
Quote

It's completely relevant based on assertions you've made, but every time we disprove one of these assertions, you claim you didn't make it.


My friend, you, or no one else on here has proven or disproven ANYTHING since I've been reading in. Cubist is the ONLY one to even challenge me in a logical manner that I could intelligently address and HE seems to have left...

Sure I have Jerry, you just claim what I've written is irrelevant. I really hope you believe that's true, so I can wrest what little entertainment there can be out of this thread.  :)

Jerry, you wrote the first bit earlier but mysteriously left it out in your most recent reply:

       
Quote
       
Quote
Jerry:So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


       
Quote
raguel:What you are claiming here is that two different protein chains have the same odds of being produced, but you haven't explicitly said why that is true I assumed you came to the above conclusion because you think, for reasons you alone can verify, that the two possible reactions has the same chance of occurring. What I've been trying to get across to you is that you can only make that claim if and only if two conditions are met: (1) that the proteins produced are enantiomers, and (2) that there are no catalysts present.


At this point I could go through line by line your most recent response and go back and show you exactly what other things you've said that were just inane, but you did write this:

       
Quote
please directly address my post......line by line if that helps you stay on topic.


This sounds like a good idea, if only for my own amusement.

Ok let's start here then:


Let's say the original protein chain is P, and the amino acid is A. A has two forms A(l) and A®, which are enantiomers right? So if A(l) reacts with P it produces P-A(l), and if A® reacts with P, it produces P-A® right?

If you disagree please state why

Remember let's just go line by line for right now. If you agree say so. If not say so, and that's it. We'll move on from there.  :)

Raguel, your entire post is like this:

You take a line I wrote:          
Quote
No, where in that writing did I ever MENTION two protein chains being built, calculating the probabilities of both??


Then say this about another line I wrote: "ROFL Jerry YOU are the one who wrote this":

       
Quote
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


The second line you quote STILL does not say that two protein chains are built or or being calculated......Those two lines don't have a danged thing to do with one another....

You just seem to be lost, my friend..... :)


My bold.
Ok that's fine that you think I'm lost.  :)

Can you just answer the question?

   
Quote
Let's say the original protein chain is P, and the amino acid is A. A has two forms A(l) and A®, which are enantiomers right? So if A(l) reacts with P it produces P-A(l), and if A® reacts with P, it produces P-A® right?

If you disagree please state why

Remember let's just go line by line for right now. If you agree say so. If not say so, and that's it. We'll move on from there.


Another edit:
Hah. I think I may finally understood Jerry's comprehension problem. Let's try this again:

 
Quote
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


Ok, instead of talking about products, let's talk about reactants.  :)

You're saying that the left-handed amino acid ("A(l)") has a 50% chance of adding itself to a protein chain ("P") and that the right-handed amino acid ("A®") has a 50% chance of adding itself to a protein chain. Is this correct?

The reason I'm asking is that you provided no explicit reason why this should be so. Sure, the amino acids are enantiomers, but that doesn't mean they have an equal chance of reacting with a protein chain. Are you claiming that because they are enantiomers, they have the same chance of adding to the chain? If not, can you show us explicitly how you reached the conclusion odds of one in two?

Date: 2012/12/02 17:47:05, Link
Author: raguel
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 02 2012,17:38)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 02 2012,18:04)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 02 2012,17:30)
you stupid pathetic git, some people in this room have even published with Ernst Mayr.  tell you what, kill yourself.

take it down a notch please 'Ras.

Sure by all means let's pretend that Jerry Don's parade of silly lies and innocuous character assassinations is just fun and games why don't we.

the underlying common motivator of all creationists is the desire to squelch dissent.  this moron and his fellow travellers would march you to the gulag purely on the basis of his willful ignorance hatred for people who understand things he can't.

Well he could be just a troll, but I agree with you in general: what we think of as creationism is supported almost entirely by religious convictions, lies and character assassination. There are some that are generally interested in science and try to understand the world around them but there aren't too many of them, from what I can tell.

Date: 2012/12/02 18:49:02, Link
Author: raguel
For those of you that are interested here's an example of why kinetics is so important:

http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook....ns.html

 
Quote
Mechanism and The Kinetic Domain

Consider again the   2 CH2F2 -> CH4 + CF4   disproportionation reaction, and ask the question: Are there any possible competing reactions?

There is one: the carbon forming, or coking reaction, producing of hydrogen fluoride and carbon.
CH2F2  C + 2HF

Thermochemistry calculations show this pathway is energetically preferred over disproportionation: [raguel:snipped here; it's not important and I'm too lazy to get it to fit. The important thing is this: the most thermodynamically stable product is not observed at low temperatures.]

Yet the 2 CH2F2 -> CH4 + CF4   disproportionation reaction occurs.

So, the question is: Why does   CH2F2   disproportionate to   CH4 + CF4   and not to  C + 2HF?

The answer is subtle.

• When there are two or more possible reactions, each reaction will proceed by an associated reaction mechanism and each mechanism will have an associated activation energy, Eactiv., and Gibbs free energy, ?Grxn.
• Under local conditions, the reaction will always proceed via the mechanistic pathway that has the lowest activation energy, Eactiv..
• The effect is to produce the locally thermodynamically more stable product(s) rather than globally mostthermodynamically stable product(s).
At a higher temperature the globally most stable reaction will happen, and 'coking' will occur:



Date: 2012/12/02 19:36:03, Link
Author: raguel
I know I said I'd go line by line but I can't get over how stupid this is:

   
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,15:48)
Also, I've already explained to you what a catalyst is and that it only speeds chemical reactions. You agreed to this, yet you are back now to claiming that a certain catalyst will change the probability mathematics of what amino acids form polypeptides from a racemic mixture? If you are going to continue this, let's see some science with referrences, please. But you will not cough up any, because there isn't any.




Sure you did Jerry, and I told you why it "speeds chemical reactions":

   
Quote
Yes, catalysts increase (or decrease) the rate of a chemical reaction. They do so by interacting with the transitional state, lowering the activation energy.


In answer to this:

   
Quote
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


I wrote this:

   
Quote
can be assumed to be true if and only if the products are either identical or mirror images of one another. (One can't assume that the Ea or dH are equal unless the products are identical or mirror images. Rule of thumb I learned from chem courses is that if there are different compounds then more than likely they are at different energy levels. The only exception one can count on are enantiomers. Everything else has to be experimentally determined.)Why? Because if the activation energies are different enough you'll only see one product. If they are the same but the products have different energy levels and they are in equilibrium, then the products will form at the same rate but over time the product at the lower energy level will be formed in greater amounts.


To which you replied

   
Quote
They ARE mirror images.......that's what the the left handed and right handed refers to when we are discussing Enantiomers (Enantiomers are what I'm talking about). You don't need to take a chemistry class to know this, just look up the term:


Note that you explicitly claimed that the products are mirror images, and later claimed that you never said that. :D

Tying this in with the question at hand: if you aren't using kinetics and thermodynamics to prove this statement:

 
Quote
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


Then you aren't using chemistry to support your argument. Do you understand that much Jerry? I'm betting against it.  :)

eta: Jerry, you also claimed that I didn't post any examples showing how catalysts can affect the products observed, but that's simply not true. Earlier I posted a link to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._note-3

Quote
The enantioselectivity of CLAs derives from their ability to perturb the free energy barrier along the reaction coordinate pathway that leads to either the R- or S- enantiomer. Ground state diastereomers and enantiomers are of equal energy in the ground state, and when reacted with an achiral lewis acid, their diastereomeric intermediates, transition states, and products are also of equal energy. This leads to the production of racemic mixtures of products. However, when a CLA is utilized in the same reaction, the energetic barrier of formation of one diastereomer is less than that of another – the reaction is under kinetic control.If the difference in the energy barriers between the diastereomeric transition states are of sufficient magnitude, and high enantiomeric excess of one isomer should be observed [4](Figure 2).


Emphasis added.

So as a followup question Jerry, please tell us why you think activation energies are irrelevant when one is trying to determine the odds of an amino acid adding on to a protein. Make it good.  :D

Date: 2012/12/02 20:02:49, Link
Author: raguel
Let's put this in a way maybe Jerry can understand:

 
Quote
So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed.


Jerry, what Ogre and I are trying telling you is that, under the right condition (e.g. temperature, solvent, catalyst, concentration of reactants), when an amino acid (in a racemic mixture) adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are exactly one that it will be left-handed.  Well actually what we are trying to tell you is that there exists a spectrum of conditions that the reaction may occur in, and the odds will be anywhere between 0 and 1. You may disagree with that conclusion, but do you understand that's what we are trying to tell you? If so, re-read the links I've posted about kinetics, and if you still don't understand please tell us which part you don't understand, and we can go from there.  :)

I should point out that we are not only claiming that there are conditions that will change the odds, but we've provided you with links, links so far you have conspicuously not engaged with. Have you not read them? Will you continue to claim we have not provided them?  :D

Well I know which way I'm betting but since some people want to learn and some people don't, there's a 50% you'll read those links and try to figure out what they mean.  :p

Date: 2012/12/09 17:48:42, Link
Author: raguel
happy birthday!!

 

 

 

=====